Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: NARENDRA MODI in Nishant Deshdipak Varma vs State Of Gujarat & on 5 November, 2015Matching Fragments
"4. Ocular and documentary evidence collected during course of HC-NIC Page 25 of 31 Created On Fri Nov 06 03:00:20 IST 2015 investigation does not reveal that the acts of commission or omission alleged to have been committed by Shri Narendra Modi, formerly Chief Minister of Gujarat, after casting his vote at Nishan Vidhyalaya Polling Station satisfy the requirements of section 130 of Representation of Peoples Act1951, section 171F of IPC. Although, both these sections does not form part of the First Information Report filed by Shri H A Rathod, Police InspectorDCB PS, in interest of justice evidence and material collected during course of investigation of offence registered DCB PS vide II CR No.3045/2014 is evaluated in respect of these sections.
(3) An offence punishable under this section shall be cognizable."
Here, the panchnama of the scene of offence which was prepared as shown by Shri KD Champavat clearly measures the distance between the place from Shri Narendra Modi interacted with press representatives and the white line demarcating 100 meter perimeter of polling station as being 8 meters. It is at the skating rink that Shri Narendra Modi dfisplayed the "white coloured lotus" symbol in his hand. Video recordings of the incident collected during course of investigation shows that Shri Narendra Modi interacted with media outside the 100 meter perimeter marking polling area neighborhood. Similarly, the video evidence clearly reveal that Shri Narendra Modi did not show the "white coloured lotus" symbol in 'polling area neighborhood'. There is absolutely no evidence (both in the nature of oral and documentary evidence) suggesting that Shri Narendra Modi was holding and/or displaying "white coloured lotus" symbol in his hand HC-NIC Page 26 of 31 Created On Fri Nov 06 03:00:20 IST 2015 within "polling area neighborhood' of 100 meter perimeter of polling station.
(15) In view of the facts stated hereinabove and the ratio laid by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in abovementioned judgment, the impromptu press interaction by Shri Narendra Modi cannot be considered by any means to be 'public meeting' in view of section 126(1)(a) of Representation of Peoples Act 1951. Further, I agree with the conclusion dawn by the Investigating Officer that the broadcast of the media interaction of Shri Narendra Modi on 30.4.14 by various news channels throughout the country, the tonetenor and language used by Shri Modi in the said media interaction and the display of "white lotus' symbol by Shri Modi do not come with the ambit of display of "election matter" as envisaged under Sec. 126(1)(b) of the Representation of People's Act.
(17) Investigating Officer has recorded statements of polling officers deployed on duty at various polling booths in Nishan Vidyalya Police Station Polling Station for LokSabha Elections2014. Also, panchnama of the place from where Shri Narendra Modi had interacted with press reporters was drawn and relevant documents were collected. Perusal of statements of witnesses, including the polling officials, common public, pressreporters and police officers, clearly shows that Shri Narendra Modi did not display 'white coloured lotus' inside the prohibited area of 100 meter perimeter along the polling station. Shri Baldevbhai Ratnabhai Rabari and other polling officials had clearly stated that the a white coloured line was drawn to demarcate the 100 meter perimeter of polling station, and Shri Modi was not carrying any lotus symbol inside the polling booth. Further, panchnama and statements of witnesses shows that place of pressinteraction of Shri Modi was outside the 100 meter line demarcating the 'polling area neighbourhood'. Records produced before this Court does not reveal any material necessary for taking cognisance against any accused person under any penal section of law. Investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer is just and proper, and require no interference by this Court. There is no reason to disagree with the Final Report, and it should be allowed. Further, after detailed consideration and perusal of the records produced before this Court, proceedings against the alleged persons should be dropped, and hence I pass the following order in the interest of justice.